Boundary violation

Protests at the mayor's home go too far

February 24, 2012|Eric Zorn | Change of Subject

Pierre Williams, 16, center, a student at Dyett High School in Chicago, joins a march Monday near Mayor Rahm Emanuel's North Side home to protest planned public school closings. (Terrence Antonio James, Chicago Tribune)

Protesters crossed the line earlier this week when they marched on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's North Side home.

I don't mean the legal line, though the demonstrators, who marched peacefully to express their anger over plans to close seven public schools and "restructure" 10 others, arguably violated the Illinois law that bans picketing "before or about" residences that aren't used for business.

I mean the informal yet generally recognized line between public and private; between Emanuel the mayor and Emanuel the citizen.

Emanuel the mayor is fair game for protest when he's out and about, even when he's not acting in his official capacity. Citizens have a right to bid for his attention and try to make their views known to him, whether he's in the mood to listen or not. It's part of the job.

Emanuel the citizen, at home with his family, is off-limits. Or should be.

Home is "the sacred retreat to which families repair for their privacy and their daily way of living," in the words of a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court opinion. It is "the last citadel of the tired, the weary, and the sick."

That case, interestingly enough, involved the arrest of protesters who had marched peacefully on the home of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley to gain attention for their views on a school-related matter — the slow pace of integration.

And though in Gregory v. Chicago the high court unanimously overturned the disorderly conduct convictions of the demonstrators, the opinion left open the idea that private homes "can be protected by government from noisy, marching, tramping, threatening picketers and demonstrators bent on filling the minds of men, women, and children with fears of the unknown."

There is, after all, an implicit threat in even the most polite protest at a person's residence.

"We know where you live," it says. "We know where your family lives. We have no compunction about involving them and your neighbors in our grievance."

Why else do you think anti-abortion activists all but trademarked the hassle-at-home technique for advancing their cause?

In the 1988 case Frisby v. Shultz, the U.S. Supreme Court considered an ordinance enacted in Brookfield, Wis., to block the sign-carrying, slogan-shouting demonstrators who regularly carried on outside the residence of a doctor who performed abortions.

In the 6-3 majority opinion that generally upheld the ordinance, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "Although in many locations, we expect individuals simply to avoid speech they do not want to hear, the home is different."

The ordinance did not run afoul of the First Amendment because "the type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident," O'Connor wrote. Their activity "inherently and offensively intrudes on residential privacy. The devastating effect of targeted picketing on the quiet enjoyment of the home is beyond doubt."

She continued, "The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech. The resident is figuratively, and perhaps literally, trapped within the home, and because of the unique and subtle impact of such picketing is left with no ready means of avoiding the unwanted speech."

Not to say that Emanuel was trapped. He wasn't even home during Monday afternoon's march, according to his office, and he later shrugged off the event with a wisecrack. He also has round-the-clock police protection, which no doubt bolsters his nonchalance.

And not to say that I side with Emanuel in how he's shaking up the schools. From what I know of this dispute, parents and students weren't given enough of a voice before approval of the drastic measures that will impact them directly.

But to say that public officials and all those whose work excites public controversy — including political activists who oppose the mayor — are entitled to maintain a reasonable separation between their public and private lives. That it violates an important and generally time-honored boundary when protesters attack — no matter how peacefully — where their foes live rather than where they work.

We shouldn't even need a law to keep us on the right side of that line.